News report I heard yesterday said they’re commited to keeping the jobs here for ten years.
Agreed, this particular deal is definitely a good thing for the state of Indiana and epecially the workers who get to keep their jobs. But it’s very small compared to the overall problem
What penalty is in place if they do not keep those jobs for 10 years? If they only spend 5 million in improvements? If they only keep 600 of the 1100 you are saying are saved?
If 3 years from now, carrier has not lived up to its pledges, and decided to go to mexico anyway, does Indiana get their money back?
People generally acknowledge that having 1100 keep their jobs is an overall good thing. Certainly better than the immediate alternative.
Can you take the long view and acknowledge that the “deal” made to enable them to keep their jobs is a band-aid solution and is fraught with problems from a policy point of view?
ETA: I see you’ve responded in a later post. T/Y.
I posted good economic news that the incoming administration is responsible for. You and others tried to spin it into a bad thing simply to avoid giving credit where it’s due. Seems it worked just fine.
CairoCarol seemed to be the only one who responded to the news in a dignified manner. But the fact she felt she had to add a disclaimer is a good indicator of the level.of discourse here.
[QUOTE=IndianaBusinessJournal]
The state is offering up to $5 million in EDGE tax credits, in which the state will refund a “minority portion” of employee state tax withholdings over a ten year period.
[/QUOTE]
The tax breaks are coming from withholding tax over a 10 year period. If Carrier isn’t in the state cutting checks for ten years they’ll be structurally unable to receive those tax breaks.
What exactly does it say about Carrier that they’re willing to leave 1000 jobs in the state for $7 million dollars over 10 years when moving them could save them $65 M a year?
I don’t understand the economic choice here.
It has NOT been announced whether those are the only benefits Carrier is getting (you’ll recall when the deal was first announced, everybody “declined to reveal” what the benefits were). Now details are starting to trickle out, but the Indianapolis Star, e.g., is reporting that “Carrier Corp.'s decision to keep hundreds of jobs in Indianapolis had more to do with access to the federal government than state incentives, sources familiar with the deal told IndyStar.” (cite) So, what exactly are they gaining (or not losing) in terms of federal contracts, and what are the economic benefits/costs associated with those contracts? Do you know? Does anybody know?
Ok, how much, exactly would those 1100 have collected, and how much, exactly, are the tax incentives and any other undisclosed benefits worth? Without being able to put dollar figures on both sides of that equation, how do you know whether this is good news, bad news, or mediocre news?
It’s not economic choice. It’s meta-marketing and public relations.
Unnamed sources with vague comments isn’t much to work on. But the specific details released, which I linked to earlier, is clearly an economic win.
On the one hand Carrier stays in the state paying taxes while 1100 employees earn a salary while not collecting unemployment, retraining, etc. On the other hand Carrier is in Mexico paying no taxes while 1100 people are out of a job; many of those people will draw unemployment and other benefits while not paying income taxes, consuming less, etc.
The choice is between taxes being paid and unemployment not being collected vs taxes not being paid and unemploment being collected. Would you rather have money coming in or money goung out? Can you honestly not see the difference?
Marketing and public relations are factors in economic choice.
Carrier has at least 4 plants in the US. I don’t think this deal puts any restrictions on job moves at the other plants. So it looks like as long as the keep those jobs in Indiana, they can get the $7M deal while moving jobs away from the other plants.
The discussion has talked about nothing but bottom-line numbers, tax breaks and workforce costs. It was not superfluous to point out that Carrier gets many other, somewhat indirect benefits from allowing themselves to be talked into keeping a fraction of the jobs in the 'Murrican Heartland.
You should understand this, since you are going to great lengths to wave their PR banner for them in the matter.
And now the backtracking begins …
Just for starters, that was never the choice. Of those 1100, 300 jobs were never slated to go to Mexico in the first place. Trump is taking credit for, and you are giving Trump credit for, “saving” jobs that were never in danger.
How many other details about this deal have yet to be revealed? Are you absolutely sure you know the full final tally? (I will remind you again that the $7 million was first revealed by “unnamed sources close to the deal”–the initial announcement from Carrier didn’t mention anything about tax incentives.)
So now companies know that you can tax breaks by threatening to export jobs.
So, I’m a business owner. Can I threaten to move my business to another country to get a tax break? That sounds useful.
Obviously I was being a bit flippant. It depends on the situation; the size of the company, the number of employees, etc.
Sorry, I was being flippant too, pointing out the absurdity of the situation, not of your comment.
1000 workers. At $10-$15 per hour, we can assume they make 20 to 30k per year.
So, Drumpfft pays the CEO of Carrier probably something close to 3 million up front plus a massive tax break.
And the crowd goes wild.
I remain amazed at Trump. This appears to be one of the hardest things to figure out. I underestimate and misunderstand him again and again.
The Carrier jobs issue is yet another example.
I don’t understand the motivation and consequence of Carrier’s decision. I suspect that since Carrier management are sensible people they don’t understand the motivation and consequences either.
The backtracking post upthread provided yet more confusion-it seems Trump was as surprised as anyone that a) he had made a promise and b) anyone took him seriously.
Scott Adam’s blog (he is a long-time Trump supporter and writes the Dilbert comic strip) attributes the Carrier deal to the routine actions of any new CEO. Find a quick and easy win as soon as you get the job to make that all-important first impression a positive one. A positive first impression is a must for any new CEO. Which certainly matches my experience. New CEOs always make some splash. It rarely turns out to be a lasting benefit, but it “sets the tone”.
See: the Dec 1 2016 post in: http://blog.dilbert.com
So, either it was a surprise to all, or just a routine trick. I remain amazed and confused by this man.
BTW, if the backtracking post is accurate, if Trump has publicly said he has no memory of ever promising to keep the Carrier jobs in the US, I wonder how the management at Carrier must feel right now. They publicly backed down and cost their shareholders tens of millions of dollars-and the person on the other side of the table didn’t even remember they existed. I don’t know who should feel stupid right now-Trump for not realizing he had made a promise, Carrier for folding under nonexistent pressure, Trump supporters who must be wondering whether Trump is going to forget their favorite promises, the press for making a big deal out of a minor business story, me for not being able to figure any of this out, or all of the above.